<br /> \
<br /> Council Chamber
<br /> Eugene, Oregon
<br /> August 28, 1972
<br /> . Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the
<br /> meeting held August 14, 1972 - was called to order by Council President Fred Mohr, in the
<br /> absence of Mayor Anderson, at 7 :30 p. m. on August 28, 1972 in the Council Chamber with the
<br /> following other councilmen present: Mrs. Beal, Messrs. McDonald, Teague, Williams, Hershner,
<br /> and Bradshaw. Mrs. Campbell was absent.
<br /> I - Proclamations
<br /> A. Canvass of votes cast August 17, 1972 in election to exceed 6% limitation by
<br /> $2,175,214 was presented, showing votes cast For - 4~339; Against - 3,564.
<br /> Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague to accept the proclamation. Motion
<br /> carried unanimously.
<br /> B. Proclaiming week of September 4 through 10, 1972 as "Union Label Week" was presented.
<br /> Assistant Manager explained, on questioning from Co,uncil members, that the Mayor:
<br /> traditionally makes this type of proclamation, but since he is out of town it was
<br /> felt better that it be made by the Council collectively. /
<br /> Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague to issue the proclamation. M' ;' d
<br /> otlon carrle
<br /> . unanimously.
<br /> II - Public Hearings
<br /> A. Appeal, Phase One, Southridge Planned Unit Development (West of Willamette, north of
<br /> 52nd) - Decision of the Planning Commission at its July 12, 1972 meeting granting pre-
<br /> liminary approval for Phase One of the Southrdige PUD, located west of Willamette Street
<br /> north of 52nd Avenue, was appealed to the Council by Jean Smith (Mrs. Richard J.),
<br /> 5290 Saratoga Street, in her own behalf and representing the South Eugene Homeowner's
<br /> Association. The appeal was made on the basis that the finding that the permit cri-
<br /> teria (a) through(e) of Section 9.782 of the Eugene Land Use Ordinance had been met
<br /> was not supported by evidence in the record.
<br /> B. Appeal, BALSM PUD (Southwest of Donald, west of Fox Hollow) - Decision of the Planning
<br /> Commission at its August 7, 1972 meeting granting preliminary approval for the BALSM PUD,
<br /> located southwest of Donald Street and west of Fox Hollow Road, was appealed to the
<br /> Council by Cormac J. Dillon, 5410 Saratoga Street, in his own behalf and, representing
<br /> I the South Eugene Homeowner's Association. The appeal was made on the basis that the
<br /> finding that the permit criteria (a) through (e) of Section 9.782 of the Eugene Land Use
<br /> Ordinance had been met was not supported by evidence in the record.
<br /> I
<br /> Notices of appeals, copies of which were previously distributed to Council members,
<br /> . were read, and it was noted that Council had also received copies of memo from the Plan-
<br /> ning Commission setting forth conditions upon which approval was based, with co~ies of
<br /> staff notes and Commission minutes of the July 12 and August 7, 1972 meetings. Copies
<br /> of excerpt 'from the Zoning Ordinance (Section 9.782) governing Permit Criteria were
<br /> distributed to Council members with agenda of this meeting.
<br /> I Councilman Mohr explained the nature of the appeals and rules by which the hearing would
<br /> be conducted. He said the Council has before it substantial record of Planning Com-
<br /> ,mission hearings and would therefore hear only summary statements as to the issues or
<br /> new information nq:t:,already in the record. ...The Co~cil, he said, would be considering
<br /> only whether the Planning Commission erred in making its decision based on ordinances
<br /> governing planned unit developments. He stated the Council's policy of holding items
<br /> in the event of disagreement with Planning Commission decisions until such time as it
<br /> can be discussed at a joint session of the two bodies.
<br /> Mrs. Baal inquired whether the total project is being considered or only whether the
<br /> Planning Commission erred. That is, if it is found the Planning Commission, 'did not err
<br /> according to the permit criteria, must the Council rule in favor of the Planning Commis-
<br /> sion? Can the Council decide whether the entire project is a good idea? Mr. Mohr said
<br /> the appellant is not basing the appeal on a matter of judgment but claims the Commission
<br /> erred in not taking into account certain conditions for planned unit developments. On
<br /> . further questions from Mr. McDonald, Mr. Mohr said the Council could overturn the Com-
<br /> mission decision if they decide no error was made in the record or procedure, yet the
<br /> judgment was wrong.
<br /> Assistant City Attorney Jim Korth further explained procedure for appeals as governed by
<br /> ordinance and read the applicable section. He said the final decision would be either
<br /> that the total proposal meets the applicable criteria or it does not, and in making a
<br /> decision that the Commission is in error, the error must be designated.
<br /> .z, ~l:J
<br /> 8/28/72 - 1
<br /> ...